Newsletter

Letters to the editor

The people who pioneered the Historic Savannah Foundation in the 1950s, saving many Savannah historic places from destruction, also created a great tourist attraction.

But we seem intent on destroying it for short-term economic development and economic benefits for a few.

People come to the historic district to see historic structures, green squares and monuments, not to see big box hotels looming over the historic district.

Why is Savannah killing the goose that lays the golden eggs? Why are we being shortsighted?

Will Savannah end up eating its seed corn as it allows development to damage historic structures and put financial hardship on historic property owners who want to restore, not destroy their properties?

When is the city going to create a hotel district outside the historic district and provide transportation to the historic district?

LEWIS L. LEONARD

Savannah

Prepare now for final health care decisions

During the past session, the Georgia legislature made it easier for all Georgians to plan for the time when they will not be able to make their own health care decisions. The new Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care allows Georgians to legally appoint a person to make these decisions for them as well as state their preferences for medical treatments in one document. It is written in straightforward language and is easy to complete without legal assistance. One can obtain a copy of the new Advance Directive for Health Care online at any of the locations listed below.

The new Advance Directive form reflects the input and insight of a group of individuals that dedicated many hours to ensuring that the Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care would be the best document possible to assist Georgians in making these difficult decisions. The group included health care professionals, lawyers, college professors, ethicists, and representatives from community organizations. The combined experience of the members of the group knowledgeable in the area of preserving the right of individuals to control all aspects of their own personal care and medical treatment or lack thereof is evident in this new form effective July I, 2007.

All Georgians are encouraged to discuss their own wishes with their loved ones and to complete an advance directive, whether it is the new Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care or another similar document. We cannot know when we will not be able to make decisions for ourselves. It could happen tomorrow, next year, or perhaps not for decades. By discussing and planning for when that time comes, you will give your loved ones a great gift - peace of mind.

The Advance Directive for Health Care is available at:

www.critical-conditions.org

www.emory.edu/ethics

www.lawandhealth.org

R. STEVE TUMLIN

Atlanta

Kill unconstitutional hate crimes bill

U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. John Congers, D-Mich., are sponsors of a hate crimes bill that would make it a hate crime to speak out against the homosexual/lesbian lifestyle.

This bill, if passed would lead to the possible arrest and imprisonment of many religious leaders and members of the general public who speak out or write against this perverted and unnatural practice.

The bill may pass Congress, but should be vetoed by President Bush. Even though some Republicans are for this bill, I do not believe there will be enough votes to override the president's veto and become law. However, just think if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were president. This would pass in flying colors.

Not only is this bill a farce, but it is a violation of freedom of speech and religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. We have heard so much recently about issues violating the separation of church and state, if ever there was something that violates church and state this bill sure does.

It shows you just how far down the moral spectrum we have fallen that this type of bill should even come close to consideration. I don't claim to be a Republican or Democrat, but the fact is this is not something that would typically come out of the Republican Party.

Our leaders in this area, Rep. Jack Kingston and Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson will most assuredly oppose this measure. However, those of us who know this bill is unjustifiable need to contact these men in mass numbers to ensure that they vote against H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 and kill it for a least two more years.

MICHAEL FAULK

Jesup

GOP shows double standard in Libby case

Of the 25 Republican senators still in office who voted to convict Bill Clinton on both articles of impeachment, not one of them has issued a public statement on the Libby sentence commutation in the three days since it occurred. I went back and looked at what some of them had to say about the rule of law, integrity and all of that stuff when it involved a Democrat and not one of their own.

And you're not going to believe this: What seems to be ok with them now, wasn't acceptable back in 1999. They voted guilty on both the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Clinton.

The Washington Post referred to Libby and the administration's supporters as conservatives. I think its pervasive use of the word "conservative" to describe Libby's core supporters, to me its not "conservatives" but a collection of right-wing radicals, mostly ultra-nationalist hawks and leaders of the Christian right.

After all what is "conservative" about campaigning for the presidential pardon of a man convicted by a jury of his own peers of lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury and thus obstructing the ability of career prosecutors to determine whether he, the vice President and/others in the White H ouse conspired to out a covert CIA operative and to put the issue of Valerie Plame' covert status to rest in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, let alone to manipulate and subvert the intelligence process so as to take the country to war under highly questionable pretenses. For that matter, what is "conservative" about the theory of a unitary executive or invading and occupying a country that poses no imminent threat to the U.S. or to any of its allies, or tearing up the Geneva Conventions --- positions that have been championed by the same people who pressed Bush to pardon Libby

One would think "conservatives" would respect traditional institutions, such as the judiciary (including the Republican-appointees of the appeals court who rejected Libby's petition for a stay of the sentence pending appeal, and the Republican-appointed judge who presided over the trial and sentenced Libby), would call for a certain deference on the part of a truly "conservative" president and his supporters.